Anti-Trump Christians, Would You Prefer a President Who Supports Secular Social Agend

[demi-conservative]

If you're going to make up absurdly high numbers why not just claim guns prevent a million billion deaths a year while you're at it?

If you compare US crime and murder rates to the rates of other similar countries who don't have guns, that tells you the guns are doing nothing useful to reduce crime.

As always, you ignore the fact that '''''''''''''''similar''''''''''''''''' countries aren't as inhomogeneous, they don't have violent underclasses to the same degree or the same number of violent gang members. It's not similar at all, but when did you care about the facts?

[demi-conservative]

BALTIMORE (AP) — New crime statistics released by the FBI place Baltimore’s homicide rate last year well above that of any other large American metropolis, making it an anomaly in the national crime landscape for U.S. cities with populations over 500,000 people.

The 342 homicides notched last year in Maryland’s biggest city yielded a punishing homicide rate of 56 per 100,000 people, according to the FBI’s annual Crime in the United States report released Monday. Earlier this year, Baltimore had announced 343 slayings for the year, but three deaths were reclassified, eventually bringing the total to 342 in the city of roughly 615,000 inhabitants. The per capita rate was a record high for the city.

Among major U.S. cities, Baltimore was followed in the FBI’s annual tally by Detroit, which last year recorded a homicide rate of 40 per 100,000 people; Memphis, Tennessee, with a rate of 28 per 100,000; and Chicago, with a rate of 24 per 100,000. But some smaller cities reported a higher homicide rate than Baltimore’s. St. Louis, with a population slightly over 300,000, had a rate of 66 murders per 100,000 people
https://apnews.com/4ddfc91a71ce4a3099083a8d3c2158ad

Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago. Can't imagine why.

[Leonhard]

guns have been used to prevent hundreds of thousands of crimes, and deter many more

The data is all over the place. I have not been able to draw the conclusion that they have any net effect at all. Especially when comparing to other countries.

As justification for choosing other political issues over the great moral issue, 'you conservatives do it too' BS.

If conservatives do it, they have no right to ask me to do it.

What I actually do, I don't think I'll tell you.

[Starlight]

As always, you ignore the fact that '''''''''''''''similar''''''''''''''''' countries aren't as inhomogeneous, they don't have violent underclasses to the same degree

I ignore that claim because it's simply false.

Here in New Zealand we have a minority ethnic group with dark skin, called Maori, who constitute an almost identical percentage of the population here as blacks do in the US. Compared to other ethnic groups they are much poorer, have worse health outcomes, and commit crime to a much greater degree. They are even more heavily overrepresented in our prison system than blacks are in the US.

So I am contemptuous of Americans saying "but we have black people who commit crime". Ok, join the club. The US is not some sort of unusual, incomparable case, that is somehow more diverse, or more different, than any other country. It isn't special or unique, though I sometimes wonder if it is with regard to its levels of idiocy.

but when did you care about the facts?

Pretty much all my life, it's what led me to prioritize academic study, do multiple degrees, and pursue science as a career path. It's why I'm a scientist today and love my daily job learning new facts and working out how to discover more.

[demi-conservative]

Here in New Zealand we have a minority ethnic group with dark skin, called Maori, who constitute an almost identical percentage of the population here as blacks do in the US. Compared to other ethnic groups they are much poorer, have worse health outcomes, and commit crime to a much greater degree. They are even more heavily overrepresented in our prison system than blacks are in the US.

How does the homicide rate compare? Isn't this irrelevant though?

So I am contemptuous of Americans saying "but we have black people who commit crime". Ok, join the club.

You did say 'If you compare US crime and murder rates to the rates of other similar countries who don't have guns'. Now, New Zealand has guns (that they're trying to confiscate), so that's not relevant to what we were discussing.

[Starlight]

Now, New Zealand has guns (that they're trying to confiscate), so that's not relevant to what we were discussing.

The recent change is relatively minor (a few gun types are being removed the list of allowed guns). It doesn't change the general rules, namely that people are allowed guns for hunting or farm use and have to get a gun license with a police background check which includes a home visit and a lengthy questionnaire and safety training. People have to store the guns in a locked cabinet with the ammo separate, and are not allowed to buy or carry guns for self-defense. When your gun is out of its cabinet it needs to travel with you directly to the usage area and directly back and be locked away again. You can't just carry it around the city with you or stash it in your car in general. I have never seen a person with a gun in any public urban area, and if I did I would call the police immediately, as it isn't legal. Police in NZ are not armed, and in the event of a crime being committed by a person with a gun, specially trained police are issued guns temporarily to deal with the situation.

So you could and still can, own a gun. But you aren't allowed to use it for self-defense. As in, it's illegal, will get your gun license revoked and your guns confiscated, and literally never ever happens: I am not aware of a single instance in my lifetime.

So New Zealand and America are a good comparison case of "we have no guns to defend ourselves" vs "we have guns to defend ourselves".

How does the homicide rate compare?

The New Zealand homicide rate is 1.3 homicides per hundred thousand people per year. The US homicide rate is 5.0 homicides per hundred thousand people per year. So you're about 4x more likely to be murdered in the country where you can "defend yourself" with a gun than in the country where you can't.

[demi-conservative]

So New Zealand and America are a good comparison case of "we have no guns to defend ourselves" vs "we have guns to defend ourselves".

Okay.

The New Zealand homicide rate is 1.3 homicides per hundred thousand people per year. The US homicide rate is 5.0 homicides per hundred thousand people per year. So you're about 4x more likely to be murdered in the country where you can "defend yourself" with a gun than in the country where you can't.

It really depends on where you live. The states with the lowest homicide count are comparable to New Zealand.

[NorrinRadd]

If that is all you meant I agree, but then you're missing the point of the analogy. Conservatives here are not willing to give up secondary issues, for something that should be a primary issue, so I can't see why they would expect me to.

I don't think I could vote Republican, if I was American. If I vote Republican, I'd be voting against all my core values, if I vote for a Democrat I'm voting for an anti-life position. Neither is tenable.

I will assume that your answer below for "sine qua non" values would be the same as your "core" values above.

It still came as quite a shock that gun rights are a more important issue to Conservative Christians on TheologyWeb than pro-life issues.

How did you arrive at "more important," as opposed to "AS important"?

Regarding your "sine qua non" (=core?) values below,

Science and evidence should drive politics.

Meaning, among other things, that transgenderism should be recognized and treated as a disorder. Agreed!

Climate change is something we need to acknowledge and deal with.

Persuant to Point 1, we should expand use of nuclear power; we should be honest about which countries are most harming the planet; we should be realistic about what is actually, practically achievable.

Education should be considered a public good.

True. But it is less clearly true that public education is a good.

Ready access to educational *options* should be considered a public good.

Welfare is good for those who need and should be developed instead of abolished

I don't know of any Republican, conservative, or libertarian who advocates total abolition of "welfare." We are ok with "developing" it, as long as that does not directly equate to "increasing it and making it ever more readily available." In this country, even some honest liberals have recognized that, despite noble intentions, the Welfare system has become a generational poverty trap for many.

charities cannot lift the task.

Probably true, at least in part because we have allowed "Welfare" to become so large and important and entrenched that it is impossible to untangle the mess.

To some extent, greater job availability for with improved wages the poor will help, but society is moving in a direction where low-IQ persons will be increasingly unemployable.

Taxation should be progressive.

Taxation should be minimal, and government should be reduced to fit.

It is right and proper for the government to regulate the market to protect consumers.

Agreed... although I don't trust "big" anything -- Big Government, Big Business, whatever.

The death penalty should be abolished.

Nah. I could even be persuaded that we should bring back corporal punishment.

"God, I miss the screamin'." -- Filch

Conservatives focus too much on individualism, instead of considering communities.

I kind of agree. "Rugged Individualism" is a traditional American ideal that is over-emphasized by conservatives and IMO inconsistent with Scripture. But I certainly don't find the statist-collectivist views of the Left any better.

Homosexuality is not a medical illness, and should not be treated as one. (thankfullythis is only a minor problem now)

Homosexual practice is clearly sinful (of course this has no bearing on public policy), and self-evidently abnormal. It is a national tragedy that it has become normalized and even celebrated.

------------------

You're obviously correct -- you would not be at home among conservatives. I'm actually surprised. Is it common in your part of the world for such beliefs to be "core" values?

[Sparko]

The other part is that the senate is required to be ‘fair’ whereas the house has no such requirement.

Where are you getting this from?

[Cow Poke]

Happy new year mate!

I don’t think the house should have any authority in how the senate runs its trial. I believe ‘sole’ power gives them that right.

Correct - House has sole authority for impeachment, Senate has sole authority for conviction/removal.

However, people are of course entitled to make suggestions.

What the Democrats appear to be attempting is a Quid Pro Quo --- you do what we want and we'll give you the Articles of Impeachment.

What Pelosi is doing is a little complicated in my opinion. She is holding onto the articles due to a credible possibility that it will be quickly dismissed in the senate, which could sound like a reasonable position to hold.

She has no power or authority over the Senate, and she's shirking her responsibility to pass the AoI to the Senate.

The complicated part, in my opinion, is that the act of holding onto the articles has the effect of influencing how the senate runs their trial by making the situation that unless the trial is run a certain way then there won’t be a trial at all. That’s indirectly being an authority on how the trial is conducted.

Correct.

The other part is that the senate is required to be ‘fair’ whereas the house has no such requirement.

I'd love to see you try to back that up with actual cites.

So one argument may be that Pelosi is making sure that the senate sticks to their obligations but on the other hand can she do that by breaching the senates ‘sole’ power by making conditions on how it needs to be run?

Not only that, but the House ran their part in such an incredibly partisan one-sided manner, how can Pelosi now demand "fair"... and "fair" is always relative. Fair to whom?

This is a question the Supreme Court would need to answer based on how the constitution would’ve resolved this situation.

There is no constitutional question here --- the Constitution is clear that the House has sole responsibility and authority for impeachment, and the Senate has sole responsibility and authority for conviction/removal.

[Sparko]

The data is all over the place. I have not been able to draw the conclusion that they have any net effect at all. Especially when comparing to other countries.



If conservatives do it, they have no right to ask me to do it.

What I actually do, I don't think I'll tell you.

Part of the reason is that deterrence/self-defense doesn't usually end in the criminal's death. Many times a defensive use of a weapon results in the criminal being scared away or maybe just wounded. And the standard statistics ( https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ta-table-8.xls ) usually just track crime related homicides, not self-defense killings.


I can't find the actual report discussed, but this site claims around 67,000 self-defense uses of guns per year average:
---
The U.S. Department of Justice investigated firearm violence from 1993 through 2011. The report found, “In 2007–2011, about 1 percent of nonfatal violent crime victims used a firearm in self-defense.” Anti-gun zealots attempt to use this statistic to discredit the use of a gun as a viable means of self-defense, and by extension, to discredit gun ownership in general.

But look deeper into the numbers. During that five-year period, the Department of Justice confirmed a total of 338,700 defensive gun uses in both violent attacks and property crimes where a victim was involved. That equals an average of 67,740 defensive gun uses every year. In other words, according to the Justice Department’s own statistics, 67,740 people a year don’t become victims because they own a gun. (I suspect that if more states allowed concealed carry to be widespread, the number of instances of defensive gun uses would be even higher.)

https://fee.org/articles/more-people...car-accidents/

The FBI statistics I linked to above say there were only 10,265 gun related homicides in the USA in 2018. So That would mean that self-defense use of guns is 6 times greater than criminal use.

[oxmixmudd]

Part of the reason is that deterrence/self-defense doesn't usually end in the criminal's death. Many times a defensive use of a weapon results in the criminal being scared away or maybe just wounded. And the standard statistics ( https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ta-table-8.xls ) usually just track crime related homicides, not self-defense killings.


I can't find the actual report discussed, but this site claims around 67,000 self-defense uses of guns per year average:
---
The U.S. Department of Justice investigated firearm violence from 1993 through 2011. The report found, “In 2007–2011, about 1 percent of nonfatal violent crime victims used a firearm in self-defense.” Anti-gun zealots attempt to use this statistic to discredit the use of a gun as a viable means of self-defense, and by extension, to discredit gun ownership in general.

But look deeper into the numbers. During that five-year period, the Department of Justice confirmed a total of 338,700 defensive gun uses in both violent attacks and property crimes where a victim was involved. That equals an average of 67,740 defensive gun uses every year. In other words, according to the Justice Department’s own statistics, 67,740 people a year don’t become victims because they own a gun. (I suspect that if more states allowed concealed carry to be widespread, the number of instances of defensive gun uses would be even higher.)

https://fee.org/articles/more-people...car-accidents/

The FBI statistics I linked to above say there were only 10,265 gun related homicides in the USA in 2018. So That would mean that self-defense use of guns is 6 times greater than criminal use.

Criminal use of a gun does not require the result to be a homicide. So you'd need real stats to know what the ratio is.

[Sparko]

Criminal use of a gun does not require the result to be a homicide. So you'd need real stats to know what the ratio is.

Good point.

[Leonhard]

I will assume that your answer below for "sine qua non" values would be the same as your "core" values above.

The answers are short and only represent a very superficial treatment of my beliefs, but I thought it was sufficient to give you an example of the values I believe are core political values for me.

How did you arrive at "more important," as opposed to "AS important"?

That's a fair point. But to be honest, I believe the notion that your right to own a Colt Python to be just as important, as stopping a local abortion mill to be out of proportion.

Regarding your "sine qua non" (=core?) values below,
*proceeds to give conservative answers*

Woaw, I didn't know you were a conservative and I was a liberal.

Alright I'll interact on some of them, but you asked for examples. Why are you debating them now? Honestly, I think criticism of my stance on those issues is best left for other threads, because... look at your post. It's a complete scattershot of answers. I'll pick two of your responses and answer them.

Meaning, among other things, that transgenderism should be recognized and treated as a disorder. Agreed!

Transgenderism? Do you mean gender dysphoria? That's already classified as a disorder in the DSM-V. It has profound psychological and emotional consequences that a person's perceived sex to not align with what they identify as. I believe the conditions need more study, so we can understand where it comes from, how it manifests, its varieties and how people suffering from it can best be helped.

Agreed?

Homosexual practice is clearly sinful (of course this has no bearing on public policy), and self-evidently abnormal. It is a national tragedy that it has become normalized and even celebrated.

Normalization of homosexuality is a moral issue, not a mental health issue. People with homosexuality should not be misdiagnosed or mistreated because of what they are. It makes no sense to do this. Likewise, I believe Christians ought to stop with the pseudoscience of conversion therapy. I don't mind support groups such as a Courage, but all the pseudo-Freudian stuff and regressive aversion therapy going on under the radar should end.

You're obviously correct -- you would not be at home among conservatives. I'm actually surprised. Is it common in your part of the world for such beliefs to be "core" values?

Why are you surprised? And yes, I live in Denmark.

[Terraceth]

Getting back to the op. I don't see people discussing it at all.

I once challenged conservatives on this forum whether they would make a trade of a repeal of Roe vs Wade, with the 2nd ammendment getting nullified and gun rights being strongly restricted.

I did this, thinking this would be a no issue. Gun laws, while important to conservatives, must obviously be a secondary issue when measured against the rights of the unborn.

Yet in that thread the majority of people would not sacrifice their gun freedom, for pro-life values being advanced. Some discussed their rationalizations for this, but it was near universal. The right to having a gun, was not something to be given up, not even for a repeal of Roe vs Wade and abortion being criminalized. In light of that, I'm tempted to say that if you would not make compromises on secondary values of your political system, then why do you ask of a democratic Christian (like me) to make compromises on his political values for the sake of the unborn?

I don't think I participated in that topic. For the record, I would easily trade gun rights for a repeal of Roe v. Wade--but then again I'm fairly neutral on the issue of gun rights so that's not really saying much. I'm also not sure I qualify as a conservative.